Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS study is the result of a long journey.Several times along the way I responded to the sirens' call, and detoured to accept an interesting invitation to do a paper or an article that lay a bit off my route, but always I returned to my chosen path refreshed, broadened, and enriched by my excursion.My search for research material took me to archives of The United Church of Canada all across the country.Through The United Church's Committee on Archives and History I knew the archivists and committee chairs of the network of conference archives, but only through my use of these repositories did I learn how fine a system it is.In St. John's, I was well served by Alison Piercy and by friendly volunteers at the Newfoundland and Labrador Conference Archives.Linda White made thoughtful arrangements for my visit to the archives of Gower Street United Church, and Florence and Robert McNeely of George Street United Church devoted a Saturday evening to giving me access to that congregation's records.The Maritime Conference Archives were in Halifax when I first used them, benefiting from Carolyn Earle's masterful knowledge and warm hospitality.After the archives moved to Sackville, Judith Colwell served me with efficiency and good cheer.The Montreal and Ottawa Conference records are divided among several locations.In Montreal I was welcomed and assisted by Beverly Anderson-Levine and by my good friend Susan Stanley.On other trips, archivists of the city of Ottawa and of Bishop's University served me well.Unexpected circumstances made the timing of my visit to the Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Conference Archives unfortunate, but Diane Haglund's efforts in the face of the difficulty were nothing less than heroic.At the Saskatchewan Conference Archives, I received help
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.223 | 0.128 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".